VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[upandgo]

when evaluating the effectiveness of parliament as a law maker, how many points/arguments would i need to include in my response? the textbook has 11, but since there might not be enough time to mention all under timed conditions, would 8 be sufficient?

[IDK]

when evaluating the effectiveness of parliament as a law maker, how many points/arguments would i need to include in my response? the textbook has 11, but since there might not be enough time to mention all under timed conditions, would 8 be sufficient?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it would depend on the amount of marks allocated to the question. I think this type of question is generally going to be a standard 6, maybe 8 mark question.

So that would mean 3 points (6 marks) or 4 points (8 marks) evaluating a strength of parliament as an effective law maker and the corresponding weakness (this here is really important btw).

Strengths and Weaknesses + an evaluation (my understanding of evaluating is to make an overall assessment/judgement).

Remember the task word will usually be Evaluate. I think given in the study design it explicitly says the word Evaluate then all questions should use that task word, but I think some of the other people in this thread will be able to give you a more definitive/better answer.

So to answer your question, you wont list the 11 points in your textbook. Rather your answer and its length will depend on the number of marks allocated to the question.

Hope this helped

[meganrobyn]

It can be up to a 10-marker, so you need to prep enough for that.

Regarding marks-per-point, it's not advisable to plan to receive one mark per point you make: you might make a crappy point, word it crappily, link it poorly to the question, or just say something the assessor doesn't think sounds valid. Also, it's ignoring the fact that larger questions are marked globally - on overall quality, and not just number of points. A better way is to judge it on time writing, and combine that with an approximate length to make something detailed but not laboured.

Therefore:

You need to write for 20-25mins for the final 10-marker. It takes a little longer per mark to make it really good. You also need to make sure you get on to the third page at least. None of this is official 'assessment guideline', mind you - this is just playing it safer. It takes about three lines to make a good point - sometimes a little shorter, sometimes a little longer, but not varying wildly. If you put these things together, how many arguments do you need to fill 2-4 pages with around three lines per point and taking around 20-25mins to write? That's how many points you need.

Also remember that you can match more than one strength to a single weakness, and vice versa.

[meganrobyn]

hey guys  quick question:

my textbook says that after the 2nd reading speech in vic parliament, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations committee examines the details of the bill. at federal level, would this same process be conducted by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights?

All bills are looked at by the Senate Scrutiny committee, but I think the better equivalent would be the joint committee. As far as the wording of their directions sounds, they do examine every bill and report back to parliament every week. I'm not aware of either rights committee, state or federal, being amazingly effective, though; the Victorian one has achieved four minor amendments (out of over 200 new bills, including laws to make protest illegal) since it was constituted. Ha.

[IDK]

It can be up to a 10-marker, so you need to prep enough for that.

Regarding marks-per-point, it's not advisable to plan to receive one mark per point you make: you might make a crappy point, word it crappily, link it poorly to the question, or just say something the assessor doesn't think sounds valid. Also, it's ignoring the fact that larger questions are marked globally - on overall quality, and not just number of points. A better way is to judge it on time writing, and combine that with an approximate length to make something detailed but not laboured.

Therefore:

You need to write for 20-25mins for the final 10-marker. It takes a little longer per mark to make it really good. You also need to make sure you get on to the third page at least. None of this is official 'assessment guideline', mind you - this is just playing it safer. It takes about three lines to make a good point - sometimes a little shorter, sometimes a little longer, but not varying wildly. If you put these things together, how many arguments do you need to fill 2-4 pages with around three lines per point and taking around 20-25mins to write? That's how many points you need.

Also remember that you can match more than one strength to a single weakness, and vice versa.

Thanks heaps for the clarification, I had been thinking that but didn't exactly mention it.
Can a 10 marker be a pure evaluate parliament as a law maker question? Given its 10 marks Id imagine there would be another component (concept to address) to it more often than not.

Do you think that the way I thought of doing is perhaps a common way of going about it? It seems like the easiest way for me personally. Evaluating one strength against one weakness.
Within that, should your evaluation be embedded in the strength and weaknesses separately or cover both of them as one?

[chasej]

Thanks heaps for the clarification, I had been thinking that but didn't exactly mention it.
Can a 10 marker be a pure evaluate parliament as a law maker question? Given its 10 marks Id imagine there would be another component (concept to address) to it more often than not.

Do you think that the way I thought of doing is perhaps a common way of going about it? It seems like the easiest way for me personally. Evaluating one strength against one weakness.
Within that, should your evaluation be embedded in the strength and weaknesses separately or cover both of them as one?

The ten marker could just be that, but I doubt it would be because it's such an obvious questions, there should be some creativity from the exam writers so the students that actually understand the course can be rewarded, not just the rote-learners [my opinion].

The way you talked about doing it is in my experience the common, typical way of doing it. I think it's a good idea to follow the general formula of matching strengths to weaknesses but it's better to do it in a more wholesome way with the answer appearing structured and logical as opposed to each point being a standalone matching of strength v weaknesses. You should use for the higher mark questions real world examples and explain how things are linked, even if it may not appear so they are directly linked.

I used to write like this, 'The parliamentary process allows

• which helps to improve functioning of [y], as seen when [z event occurred], on the other hand/alternatively/contrastingly [mix up the words you use], an issue/problem/draw back etc. of this is [a] this means and can be demonstrated when [c] occurred'. And sometimes include stuff like 'this links in with the
  • issue earlier discussed and shows the way in which
  • and [this] can work together to achieve [z].
  
  
  Sorry if that's a bit convoluted and confusing. 

[clarke54321]

Hi all,

I have two questions:

1) In what circumstances would the Commonwealth refuse the referral of powers from the state?

2) In my textbook, it states that a disadvantage of the referral of powers is 'the states can agree to pass uniform laws without losing their law-making powers.' I don't understand how this is a weakness.

Thanks in advance 

[chasej]

Hi all,

I have two questions:

1) In what circumstances would the Commonwealth refuse the referral of powers from the state?

2) In my textbook, it states that a disadvantage of the referral of powers is 'the states can agree to pass uniform laws without losing their law-making powers.' I don't understand how this is a weakness.

Thanks in advance 

1) Difficult to say because it's never happened. I don't think it's so relevant.
2) It's not really a weakness, it just reveals that in some circumstances referral of powers can be superfluous and it may also decrease state's propensity to chose to refer a power as they can have the benefit of commonwealth-uniform laws without potentially losing their law making powers.

[upandgo]

hi everyone  is the double dissolution examinable? my teacher said it is but it's not mentioned anywhere in the study design 

[chasej]

hi everyone  is the double dissolution examinable? my teacher said it is but it's not mentioned anywhere in the study design 

I don't think it is on the exam but if your teacher treats it as examinable you should learn it in case they ask about it in SACs.

[upandgo]

sorry all, got another question  the textbook mentioned two 'future referendums', would we need to know at least one of these? (checked in the SD but it didnt mention anything so i thought i'd verify here) 

[HopefulLawStudent]

I thought if it wasn't in the SD we didn't have to do it? We didn't cover future referendums...

[Cristiano]

It isn't in the study design. The book just has 'Suggested future referendums', we also didn't cover these, so i don't think you need to know them.

[swaglord500]

hi everyone  is the double dissolution examinable? my teacher said it is but it's not mentioned anywhere in the study design 

indirectly on SD- role of GG in lawmaking- be prepared.

[upandgo]

I thought if it wasn't in the SD we didn't have to do it? We didn't cover future referendums...

me too but it was in the J&O textbook so i was kinda confused haha

indirectly on SD- role of GG in lawmaking- be prepared.

true